MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > Would it had done better at the box offi...

Would it had done better at the box office had...

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (19411)
16 replies | jump to latest

A) It come out say, in 2016 to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the premiere of the original series.

B) They brought in Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and/or Lucy Liu to provide sort of a "passing of the torch" and to bridge the gap between the "old" and "new" Angels. They could've even if they wanted to, brought in at least one Angel (i.e. Minka Kelly) from the failed 2011 TV reboot.

I don't want to say, "had they brought in more bankable, name stars" besides Kristen Stewart because of naturally, this has been discussed to death. I don't understand why Elizabeth Banks couldn't have attempted to draw from the Pitch Perfect audience and pursued Anna Kendrick, Brittany Snow, and Anna Camp.

[–] davodikum (5970) 4 years ago

It just needed a better director and story. The action was so generic. And all the action set peices seemed lifted from other movies. If you're going to steal from other movies at least do it with style.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I think the concept is flawed and stupid.

Several of my female friends did not care one bit for the Drew Barrymore led ones. They didn’t feel empowered they thought they were just dumb popcorn movies.

Why would it work now?

[–] ehewitt (30) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

if you had listen to Drew Barrymore's interviews (as a producer of those movies) when those movies came out, that's what she said.

[–] ehewitt (30) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

If it had come out in 2016 it would have been the same. People don't like the patronizing woke nonsense.

[–] enriquesingh (1771) 4 years ago

It could have come out in 2019 and been a (moderate) hit if it had a better script and director.

40th Anniversary and cameos are cheap elements... use them in advertising, interviews endorsing this new generation... all of the former Angels at the premiere or something like that.

If you are going to use nostalgia to attract the audience do something like a sequence where the new Angel's escape a prison similar to how they did on the TV series (some elements)... or have them accessing a database of former Angel's and you get a very brief glimpse of their profile photos while scrolling something like that... more subtle and not actual roles in the movie.

What matters in the movie are other things.... script and directing.

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) 3 years ago

Charlie's Angels was popular in the 1970s ONLY because it was a 'jiggle show' produced to highlight the sex appeal of beautiful young actresses. You take that premise and turn it into an empowered lesbian propaganda lecture and you are ensuring an epic fail.

[–] cyguration (3842) 2 years ago

Yeah, guys aren't fond of watching movies where the women are constantly berating them for being attracted to them, or getting woke messages about how women don't need men. Men will just say "fine" and go elsewhere.

[–] 123Guy (6159) 2 years ago

True.
And it keeps getting proven time and time again

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

They needed a better fight choreographer like the guy behind the John Wick movies - Jonathan Eusebio.

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

It would have done better at the box office had they changed it to look like a live-action adaptation of Totally Spies.

[–] ehewitt (30) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 2 years ago

Both movies are jokes but at least with Totally Spies there would be no other adaptations to compare it to.

[–] ehewitt (30) 2 years ago

[deleted]